
Abstract Biosemiotics and code biology are two promising approaches to understanding biological phenomena as meaningful. Biosemiotics proposes that a defining characteristic of life is code-duality, while code biology asserts that the nature of life lies in its code. However, they separated due to differences in their understanding of cellular-level interpretation, as well as related epistemological and methodological concerns. The split between the two was a great loss for biosemiotics. Meanwhile, code biology faces a conceptual dilemma when explaining the source of the normativity of organic codes without biosemiotics. The critiques of biosemiotics made by code biologists are reasonable and deserve serious concern. Based on Terrence Deacon’s thought experiment of autogenesis and his explanation of interpretation, the paper proposes the conception of operational interpretation to reconcile biosemiotics with code biology.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
